admiral, let me start with you. relative to afghanistan, we read -- read frequently that only one of 23 afghan brigades was rated as being at the highest capability level and that's independent with advisors. . at the same time we also know, senator reid and i went to afghanistan, so we know first hand that 78% to 80% of the operations that take place in many regions, including the toughest regions in afghanistan have taken place not just with the leadership but with totally afghan involvement. those reports seem to be

inconsistent. can you tell us in your judgment whether or not first of all the -- is our mission succeeding in afghanistan, first of all, but secondly, can you tell us about the capabilities of the afghan security forces and whether they are on track for where we expected them to be at this point in the campaign with a little over 20 months to go until the end of the i.c.f. mission. >> thank you, chairman. i'll defer. >> i thought i would start with general madison. did i say you, admiral? i'm sorry. >> chairman, our mission is succeeding. the afghan campaign is on track. it is obviously a combination of progress and violence but i would say when it comes down to the ansf, the afghan national security forces, they are proving themselves capable.

obviously; when we were looking at the drawdown numbers, there was a certain amount of forecasting that the afghan forces would be capable. let me give you some statistics to take this beyond simply my evaluation. since the first of january we have lost four of our troops killed in action. in the same period, the afghan security forces had 198 killed. there can no longer be any doubt, it's not opinion, the after begans are doing the bulk of the fighting and they are doing it with our support. as a result, i need to go back and rook at statistics to see how we are evaluating forces that are proving themselves in combat when we're saying only one is capable of independent operations with our advisors. i think we may have to look at how we're measuring them since they're measuring themselves against the enemy and they're

proving themselves there. as far as ansf itself, we are continuing to see the mature -- see them mature with our advisors, and also with our conventional forces as confidence filters, bringing american air power to bear, that sort of enabling function, we are seeing that these lads are willing to take it to the enemy, i think the taliban has very little reason for comfort right now. >> general, do you support the decision of the president relative to the reduction plan that he's announced in our troops as well as the pace of those reductions? do you support that decision? >> the second part of your question -- >> numbers and pace. >> the pace is what makes it possible for me to support it fully. the pace by not bringing the american forces down until after this year's fighting

season and with what we're seeing of the afghan security forces gives me a lot of confidence. i support the pace and i support the numbers. >> and would you say what -- when you say what we're seeing of the afghan forces you're talking about a positive trend in the capability of the forces as well as the size? >> absolutely. they are getting better each day and with 87% of the country now under their lead and them proving themselves in combat, yes, sir, i support it. >> there's been a decision made now, a decision made to reconsider any reduction in the size of the afghan troops. there was a nato decision some months ago that the goal was to reduce them by 2015, i believe, by about a third. now that's going to be reconsidered. do you agree we should keep them at their current level which is much higher than 250,000? it's about 350,000, i believe. >> yes, chairman, it's 352,000

and i completely support that. that's the way to do it as we draw our forces down to make sure the enemy doesn't see an opportunity there. >> now relative to iran, we, i think most of us agree with the position of the president as i said that the military options need to be kept on the table if necessary to prevent iran from moving to nuclear weapons. are those military option plans being developed, are they developed now? >> those plans are fully developed, mr. chairman. >> thank you. syria. this question relates to arming the opposition in syria. should we now provide lethal assistance to the syrian opposition and -- well, let's

start with that. should we move to providing lethal assistance. >> chairman, the situation is so complex i have to get some degree of confidence that the weapons are not going to people whoor our enemies. that would be the one caveat that i would put on any military advice to go forward along those lines. >> you say you would have to get some degree of confidence, you don't have that level of confidence yet? >> not yet. i have not been tasked with this mission and have not

looked deeply into this yet. >> general, there's a real threat of violence to the christian community. my question to you is whether or not in your judgment the iraqi security forces are taking the threat of violence against those christian communities seriously and whether, not, and i believe they are not, what can we do to make sure that they do it. >> chairman, iraq itself is in a post-combat, pre-reconciliation situation. they are still working out how they settle their differences, imperfectly working without resorting to violence. al qaeda is ducting most of the violence.

so long as they try to work the issues out politically, i believe in the long run it's the rule of law and the political resolution of challenges that provide for all minorities in iraq the best opportunity, the military itself, when i see them in action, trying to work it out with the kurdish situation to the north, appear to be willing to negotiate, to talk, not to go to arms, i see them doing the same thing with the sunni troubles out west, that's the role of the military to but tres law and the rule of law, not to try to provide security as the sole solution to that problem. >> i do hope that you and your successor will look for ways that we can press the iraqis to do what they committed to do, which is protect minorities

inside of iraq. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my opening statement i talked about what we did, senator too mi and i headed -- toomey and i headed up the effort to allow more flexibility with the chiefs, and i talked to the chiefs about this and they responded strongly that yes in the same top line operating for the same amount of money would we be able to get, to reduce the devastation i guess is the best way to put it. do each of you agree with the comments, and are there any comments you want to make about what type of thing we could do under that arrangement that we couldn't do with the straight cuts? >> senator, i believe that if we got some degree of budget certainty through an appropriations bill that

provides us as much as the continuing resolution does now, so we know for certain what we're dealing with, then like any household or business in america, we can make some wise choices at the flex -- and the flexibility you're talking about for service chiefs would be critical for those choices, obviously consistent with the congressional intent. but yes, sir, we need that. >> i would say, written into the draft is the assurance that we're going to follow the legislative intent of this committee and so has that level of -- have that level of discipline and have the level of discipline that they're going to be able to have some type of a congressional oversight or veto power over decisions that might be made if they were to be influenced in the wrong way. >> i absolutely concur with the service chiefs.

i have combatant service responsibilities and my ability to manage the cuts the way they are now is difficult. any flexibility in dealing with these cuts would be tremendously help to feel me and my staff. >> i appreciate that very much. chairman levin mentioned, general, or i guess both of you, about supporting arm the opposition in syria. closely connected to that, how long the assaad regime held on to powder.

going up to nass cus might be the area where you have most control but the other area, what's your assessment how long he'd be able to hold out pow for the that area? >> we're dealing with a fundamentally unpredictable situation. however, it is -- his power base is eroding. the geographic area he's controlling erodes daily. you see them using ballistic missiles to try to impact the areas he's lost control on. notice how the increased use of the missiles the last month or two has been evident. he is losing ground. i really don't have the ability to forecast, senator. i'd hate to give you some kind of certainty i don't have right now. >> he's losing ground but at the same time there's more stuff coming out of iran to fortify him. it's a tough area over there. and more so than it's ever been

before. admiral mctraven as we discussed in our meeting last week, we're seing that al qaeda and other terrorist groups are developing operational networks that are increasing -- increasingly complex. i think you are the one who stated we could no longer go after terrorist groups in an ad hoc, country by country basis if we hope to be successful. yet i'm very concerned that's exactly what we've been doing. do you believe our current counterterrorism strategy has kept pace with the increasing globalization -- global nature of al qaeda and affiliated networks? >> senator, i certainly think we understand the complexity of the al qaeda network and if you look in africa as an example, you have al qaeda in islam iic lands and me grid. -- in megrid.

you cannot isolate a single organization whether it's al qaeda or another and be able to solve the problem locally by going after the problem in a particular country or by individual entity. if you deal with aqim, you have to deal with bocaron. >> most people think the problem is north africa or up around the horn of africa when in fact there's evidence throughout after character if you talk to generalham he'll tell you the -- to general ham he'll tell you the problems with terrorist groups in other parts of africa. i think it is widespread. last question i'd have, in your professional opinion the current diplomatic efforts to stop iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability, are they working? >> no, sir. >> good. how do you think iran's behavior would change after it

obtains, assume they obtain a nuclear weapon, that capability, which our intelligence says they're going to obtain, how do you think their behavior would change after that? >> senator, you know what our policy is but i believe the reason for that policy is they would be a more em-- they would be more emboldened to act like a revolutionary cause. >> i think so too. i think it's important to understand that this thing we talked about since 2007 with their emerging capabilities, nuclear capabilities, delivery systems, it's getting worse all the time. i scrust think we need to keep talking about that. do you agree with that? >> i do, yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator inhofe. senator reid? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to add my commendation, general, along with your colleague and my colleagues for extraordinary service to the nation and to your marines.

thank you, vir -- thank you, sir, very much. let me address this question about afghanistan to both of you. president karzai said special operations forces couldn't have a presence south of kabul. does that affect the short or long-run plans of that, is this something you can cope with, but if it develops to a wider scale, it would interfere with your operations. >> i spoke with the general a short time ago, that issue is being worked right now, that decision you heard about, we're working this out as we speak. g.r. forces, i think at the same time, this is being worked at the appropriate levels with responsible people working with

the president. >> it's a final decision, going forward, i assume your answer is the need to operate feely throughout afghanistan. it's central to the withdrawal plans. >> senator reid, i think it's important, it's how best we operate in that key route into kabul. i think it's still in place, sir , i can get back to you once the decision is made. >> let me just, the larger issue here, the extent implicit in your plans for american forces, i always assume was a robust special operations capacity that could operate throughout the country is that still central to your plans, is that something that's still viable? >> it is, sir. two purposes, one is

counterterrorism. the other is advise, train, and assist. >> sir, the special operations forces we've got in afghanistan , as you look at special operation forces you can't look independently at u.s. or nato forces aloan. we have afghan special forces that are out there, so there is a network of s.o.c. being applied across the area of operations. >> let me ask another question about going forward. there's an issue about the sthifes force, the pace of the force, but also the role of the force. there's been some discussion and i don't know how far along, that these residual forces could be institutional based trainers only, not embedded

with afghan forces, n.s.f. is your vision that you will have embedded forces with them or is it simply institutional trainers and bases? >> senator, we're going to have to watch how the afghan forces mature. i anticipate there will be some embedded going on, whether it be with special forces or their conventional forces but at the current rate of maturation, they are actually becoming quite impressive in their ability to operation against this enemy. so we've got some time yet, a year and a half, to go, as we get them up on the step for when we'll draw down to the enduring force. during this period we'll figure out what level of embedding has throb and what level nato forces are willing to commit to. >> final question in this area, admiral, you still retain the capability of striking anywhere in that region if there is a

high value target as you go forward in terms of whether or not there's access to certain bases in afghanistan or other parts of the world, you can do that from aerial platforms, sea-based platforms or alternative platforms that capability exists? >> it does. >> let me talk about the issue of syria, as many people assume that the assaad regime is deteriorating rapidly. let's assume at some point it fails. what planning is going on, general, for any type of stability operations internationally to prevent a descent. >> we have quiet planning going on with regional partners and other partners to see what level of ambition and what regional leadership could take

on this mission. clearly it would be something best accomplished. regional leader, regional organization. we have fewer operations in terms of a u.n. led effort or sanctioned effort but at the same time there are regional organizations, arab league, g.c.c. that may be able to take this on. we are doing some planning with regional militaries and getting basically a framework for what this would look like, sir. >> let me ask one question. what do you think the reactions of the iranians would be to a collapse of the assaad government? >> the collapse of the assaad regime, sir? >> yes, sir. >> would be the biggest strategic setback for iran in 25 years. i believe they'll arm militias inside the country to try to create a lebanese hezbollah type effect. and they would redouble their efforts vis-a-vis iraq,

bahrain, yemen and elsewhere. >> part of our reaction is to plan for that contingency? >> we are, senator. >> senator wick ert. -- wicker. >> general, appreciate your service and good luck in your retirement. i notice the map you passed around about the area of responsibility for the commander of sent come raises from kazakhstan to the north down to yemen in the south, over to egypt. about half of the arab world, half the population of the arab world lives in egypt is that correct, yen? >> i think it's well over a third, anyway, yes, sir. >> a good portion. we just had an amendment a few

weeks ago offered to actually a storm relief bill on the floor of the senate, it would have prohibited our sale of f-16 aircraft from the united states to the egyptian military. did you follow that issue, general matti is? >> yes, sir, i did. >> and as a matter of fact, senator mccain took the point on that on the senate to floor and made an impassioned plea for us not to abandon the chance of improved relationships with the egyptian military. and i just wonder, i voted with the senator on that, to not abandon our sale of f-16's to egypt. what advice would you give us

going forward? we may have to take further votes on that. what advice would you give, what are the chances of us having a meaningful relationship with the egyptian military? >> sir, i strongly endorse the administration's position and senator mccain's position. i will tell you that i was just in cairo a short time ago and our ambassador, one of the best ambassadors we have in the foreign service, ambassador ann patterson, also endorsed it. the bottom line is, senator, that the egyptian military through a very difficult period has maintained and even built trust with the egyptian people. they have made clear their expectation that egypt will maintain its international treaties, including the one with israel. they are -- the people who provide extra security when my ships go through the suez

canal. the gaza area has probably not been this quiet in 10 years and in no small part the egyptian military is doing quiet operations. i think anything right now that we do that would undercut the trust between the u.s. and the u.s. military would be extremely unhelpful. >> what do you think the advice of the eal government would be to policymakers such as us with regard to that f-16 sale? i've gotten a lot of mail and emails from people in mississippi, very supportive of the nation of israel, and they say how could you agree to the sale of these f-16's to egypt when that could be so harmful to israel? what would your answer be to that? >> sir, i won't speak for what

israel thinks about this. i can't do that. but i would tell you that the chief of testifies of israel is in -- was in my office a week ago and this issue did not come up. secondly, as far as how to respond to your constituents, it is -- the egyptian military right now, sir, is the bulwark in the sinai against the threats, the extremist threats, against israel, against eyipt, against all of it. so the egyptian military, the organization committed, alongside, as part of their government but certainly has been very outspoken about maintaining the peace treaty, the international treaty. so it should not be seen as an enemy. it should be seen as a stabilizing force in the region. unlike, i might add, the military in libya to that fought alongside gaddafi, unlike the military in syria,

we have a military that did not act that way when egypt went through its transition. it's a stabilizing force. >> that's very helpful information. let me switch to something. hade to step out of the room to go meet with a distinguished group of four retired admirals and generals representing the u.s. tpwhrobal leadership coalition are you familiar with this coalition, general mattis? >> only very, very little. i've heard about it. >> let me tell you. they are a group of more than 120 retired three and four-star generals and admirals and they are coming on the hill today to meet with members of congress not about the military budget but about the international affairs budget. in other words what we call in shorthand foreign aid and their message to me was what some people might be a surprising message, we need to be very

careful about cuts in foreign aid and they view it, general, as working hand in glove with our security operations that you two gentlemen are involved in. i just wondered if you would comment on that. have you observed that the international development budget is helpful to us in providing national defense for our country. >> yes, sir, i would start with the department of state budget and frankly, they need to be as fully funded as congress believes appropriate because if you don't fund the state department fully then i need to buy more ammunition, ultimately. so i think it's a cost-benefit ratio, the more we put into the state department's diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an

apparent american withdrawal from the international scene. >> and to both of you, as i said, i had to step out, i understand a question was asked with regard to sequestration and the c.r. and the advice, i think, that you have for us is we at least need to go ahead with a full appropriation bill for the entire fiscal year. but let me just make sure i get this answer, would flexibility help you two gentlemen in getting through the sequestration issue? in other words, if the congress gave you not the meat ax across the board arbitrary cuts but the ability to pick and choose, would you be better off in performing your missions? >> from sent come's point of view, sir, just tell you that the full appropriations bill

would give us the predictability, the flexibility you refer to would be critical to the service chiefs to carry out the lower risk to us. >> i think flexibility would allow us to manage our money toward those areas that are at most high risk right now. certainly having the ability to manage our own budget, recognizing the cuts that are coming would be beneficial to us. >> thank you very much. thank you for your service. >> senator nelson? >> thank you, gentlemen, for your service. recently the navy announced it was going to delay the deployment of an aircraft carrier over into the sent come a.o.r. because of the sequestration threat. can you speak to that? >> sir, ships are expensive articles to operate.

we all know that. she will be maintained at an enhanced readiness level. i was onboard u.s.s. harry truman and spoke with admiral kevin sweeney about two weeks ago and he assures me his air wing and his ships will be ready to deploy on short notice. i still have one carrier out there and i would just caution any enemy that might look as an opportunity to take advantage of this situation that that would be very ill advised if the president orders us into action, i have what it takes to make it the enemy's longest day and worst day and we'll get the other carrier out there quickly to reinforce. >> if the president decided that the second carrier needed to be out there, what is the transit time from the time he would give the order? >> sir, the carrier would

deploy faster than it's required to. right now it's on 21-day ready to deploy orders. i believe they would be out of port faster than that and would take probably about 14 days to get her into theater. >> so even if you cut the 14 -- the 21 days in half, say down to 10 days, plus 14, you're talking about a total of 24 days before it could be on station? >> that's correct, senator. i can buy the time. >> when was the harry truman scheduled to depart? >> about two weeks ago. i'd have to get you spe specific date. >> i ask the question for the obvious reason, here is a good example of what you all had planned in the way of readiness

because of some ridiculous budgetary ultimate decision is causing you not to have that second carrier out there on station. would that carrier have the opportunity to be diverted into the mediterranean instead of going to the persian gulf region? >> sir, that would of course be up to the secretary of defense, which combatant commander gets her but i always thought most combatant commanders end up just forwarding ships and personnel for my use. >> coming back to syria, which is in your a.o.r. which is why i ask about sending it to the

mediterranean as opposed to the persian gulf, it seems on one hand we have assaad on the other hand we have a group fighting isad that are increasingly al nasra, which is in bed with al qaeda, is trying to take over. that doesn't give us much of a choice between those two. do you have any reason for optimism that the anti-assaad forces are going to win out that are more amenable to us than al nasra? >> senator the al nasra, they have a good propaganda campaign, using humanitarian aid, they're using weaponry and skilled foreign fighters to dig the roots into this but at the same time they have a

philosophy that is not admired by a lot of people fighting assaad. so there's nothing certain about them coming out on top, the regional powers that are supporting the anti-assaad forces have no truck with al nasra and i think you'll see more more support continued for nonal nasra elements. it is the intertwining that concerns me. >> admiral you want to characterize any effects of sequestration on your ability to deploy special operations troops anywhere there might be a flare up. >> obviously we've got the perfect storm.

right now the c.r. hurts us more than the sequestration does at this point. the c.r. for me is about $1.5 billion but getting back to the senator's point, i'm unable to manage some of the issues in terms of milcon and new starts and the adjustments need to be made. it also limits what i can do there. sequestration for me about $900 million unable to manage that money, it's about a 23% cut in sombings com's available resources. we are managing the forward deployed readiness but that's coming at the expense of our training base back -- backs up.

i think we can manage with the resors we have but we are beginning to create a readiness problem if we don't resolve the c.r. and/or have the opportunity to manage the sequestration money. i'm cutting 60% of my client hours and reducing some of the my deployments, about 20% of my deployments going forward. so again, kind of a perfect storm of fiscal problems for us, sir. >> i want to ask you something down in the weeds. last year, defense department transitioned the defense human service to the defense clandestine service. how do you anticipate that this is going to affect socom's operations? >> sir, we've been working with the defense intelligence agency and the intel community to help support the movement forward of

defense clan december tine service. i prefer to talk in closed session on some of the details of that but in total we think it's a good plan. we like the direction and the initiative the defense clandestine service, it puts us, u.s. socom, in position to have more collectors supporting the defense intelligence agency so i'm very much behind it. >> as you know in the past, the session, specifically, you and the c.i.a. have gotten along so well. and yet there's some concern about the two stepping on each other. as you move forward with this d.c.s. >> yes, sir. we're working closely with the agency on this. i think we each understand our lanes in the road. the d.c.s. is about military intelligence and obviously the agency has a different mandate in that term. i'm comfortable and i think the

senior leadership of the agency would tell you they're comfortable with the direction we're heading in the service. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our panelists for their service tour country. general mattis we will miss you and thank you for your service to our country. i want to ask about your professional opinion on whether current diplomatic and economic efforts will stop iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. i believe you said no. so if that is the case, we right now as i understand it, the economic sanctions we have imposed on iran are having a very significant negative impact on their economy and their currency, correct? >> yes, ma'am, they are. >> so if we don't -- if current diplomatic and economic sanctions will not stop us,

stop them in your opinion from obtaining nuclear weapons capability, what do you think that they are doing now with negotiations? are they trying to delay us again and continuing to enrich? >> ma'am, just to be clear, i fully support the economic sanctions, i fully support the diplomatic isolation, and accruing the international community's support to try to stop this, i believe they are trying to buy time with the negotiations but that should not be in any way construed as we should not try to negotiate. i still support the direction we're taking. i'm paid to take a rather dim view of the iranians, frankly. >> it's understandable why you would be taking a dim view how you described their activities around the world in syria, iraq, afghanistan, gaza, lebanon, yemen, i dare say we

can't think of another country that's doing more damage in term os terrorism around the world an hurting our interests and those of our allies, would you agree? >> i would agree strongly with what you just said. >> if we are in a position where, what is their history, by the way in terms of using negotiations to delay and continuing to enrich? do they have a history of doing that? >> they have a history of denial and deceit, ma'am. >> so in the recent p-5 plus one negotiations, we offered the group offered basically that we would back off on some of the sanctions if they agreed to keep enrichment levels at 20%. we were not able to reach an agreement there, is that right? >> i think they agreed to meet again, there's nothing final

about it. >> they have a history of using negotiations as the dilatory tactic while they're continuing a march toward nuclear weapons and we know they are how do we stop this pattern to make sure they know we are serious, that we will not accept them having a nuclear weapon? >> senator, i think that the more we can accommodate a larger coalition against them, i believe in some ways we have to recognize iran's legitimate security interests, so they are not put in position to use illegitimate means such as we're observing to address their legitimate security interests. as the president said, he's taken no opings off the table and my role is to provide a military option. >> how important is it we stop iran from obtain agnew clear weapon? >> i would just echo the

president's words to me, it's unacceptable, i believe it's absolutely important. >> in your position, on a scale of one to 10 in terms of danger to the world and our country, where would you put the danger of them obtain agnew clear weapon, 10 being the highest danger? >> it would be dangerous because it would enable iran to continue to act like a revolutionary cause and they would sense fewer limitations and more invulnerability to conducting the kind of attacks that killed israeli tourists in bulgaria, provide man pads to yemen which they were just caught at. i believe we would see more of this irresponsible reckless behavior. >> given the fact that they

used negotiations to delay and continuing to enrich, why wouldn't we consider just cutting off fworkses and saying here's the bottom line, iran, otherwise we're going to act because i fear if they continue to use negotiations to delay we will be at a point where they have nuclear weapons capability and then it's too late. >> it would be too late for our stated policy that they are not achieve nuclear weapons capability, i believe negotiations are critical as we build an international consensus against them and sustain that. i think at some point they have to confront the unproductive aspects of what they're doing for their own interests. >> one thing i can't get my hands around here, we have pressed their economy, we have pressed them dramatically. they -- we have negotiated with them in good faith. they have continued to enrich,

they have used negotiations as a delay tactic, at some point, you kind of have to get to a position where you say, insanity is the definition of doing the same thing over and other again and expecting a different result from a regime that continues to flout us and our allies and also be a danger to the world in terms of terrorism activities. that's the thing i worry about. how do we address that? >> as you know, what i do, i provide the commander in chief military options working with some very, very strong friends, partners in the region, they are creating in their minds as a revolutionary cause a resistance economy. they are trying to raise a sense of martyrdom as a nation. that's a very dangerous type of self-view if they were to get a nuclear weapon. i don't believe we should stop negotiations because they do

not prevent us from doing other things at the same time while negotiating, i requested and received additional forces in the gulf by the decision of the secretary of defense to ensure we are ready to tell our friends we mean business and temper the iranians' designs. >> thank you very much, general, i think we all share the concern, the senate voted on a resolution saying containment is not the policy of the united states this has been an overwhelming bipartisan issue and iran needs to understand. we understand them -- i worry they're using negotiations to delay and i hope the administration will make sure they are not able to use these negotiations to further their aims at getting nuclear weapons capability. i thank you for what you're doing. on another topic on no contracting with the enemy, that was incorporated in the defense authorization on work

we did together. richard blumen that will and i recently visited afghanistan in january and talked to the major yen there about the impact of those provisions he indicated that it would be helpful, the provisions would be helpful in cutting off funds to the eni, contracting those we don't want taxpayer dollars to go to. senator blumen that will and i are working on an effort to extend those provisions beyond afghanistan to other combatant commands and also to think about extending it to other agencies includeing -- i wanted to get your opinion. >> i fully support both the letter and spirit of what was in there. we did have to look more deeply at the subcontractors, that's where we found the problem, not with the contractors but then we followed the money down and

found some things were disappointing. i can just tell you from sent come's point of view -- from centcom's point of view in that area. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you for being here today. i know i have some specific questions, about the afghan fund and the notion that it's hard to build infrastructure inside of a contingency of our military without money getting to the enemy because of the huge cost to security. one of the reasons the enemy got money, we were trying to pay off the enemy to not kill our contractors. the problem is not just contracting with the enemy as contracting provisions we have cast into law embrace. it is also about whether it

should include infrastructure and major projects? i'll have specific questions about metrics being produced around the coin strategy to in fact support the notion that it is an effective part. i want to take advantage of your years of service, general, and ask you something that's not directly related to centcom. my background includes handling dozens and dozen os jury trials as a prosecutor, a very -- of very difficult sexual assault and rape cases. i think i have taken an acute interest along with my colleagues on the pervasive problem of prosecuting sexual assault in the military. i feel a sense of urgency today because of what happened last week. a colonel, james wilkerson, was convicted by a jury, a military jury, of sexual assault.

that occurred at aviano. he was sentenced to dismissal, forfeiture of pay and one year in jail and with a stroke of a pen last week, a general dismissed those charges against him. a general with no legal training, a general that had not been in the courtroom and this general did it against the advice of his legal counsel. now, my heart is beating fast right now, i am upset about this. as we are trying to send a signal to women, the victim in this case wasn't a member of the military. i question now whether that unit that that man returns to, whether there's any chance a woman sexually assaulted in that unit would ever say a word because what that general said is that jury's decision didn't matter. the rules say that the convening authority not only

has complete discretion as to whether or not a case is brought without any legal training required, that general, that convening authority also has the right to either reduce punishment or dismiss the cases for, quote, any reason or no reason at all. now i ask you, general mattis, isn't it time as we understand that the majority of homeless women in this country are veterans and the majority of them had some form of sexual assault that we look at the ucnj and decide we need to have something other than the arbitrary decision of one general without any other supervising authority, any other procedure that is necessary to actually overturn the very difficult decisions that the jury came to? >> senator, i do not know the specifics of this case and i've always been reluctant to

comment on something where i don't know it. some of you are aware of the high visibility court cases i have superintendented. i've read as many as 9,500 of investigations before i make certain decisions. but let me assure you, senator, that the supreme court has upheld what congress has passed with the ucmj, recognizing the unique aspects of the military. in this case, there is -- there are more rights provided for -- to defendants in the military because no court system is more subject to being characterized as a kangaroo court than one where military officers who are in command also initiate it. in this case, i cannot speak to the specifics but i can assure you that justice is overwhelmingly served by the

currently constituted ucmj and i say that because as a commander i was not just responsible for prosecution, i was also responsible for defense. and commanders must balance both of those if we're to have a fair system. i don't know the specifics of this case so i do not want that to be drawn in as support for something that i really can't -- i really can't address. >> and let's set aside the specifics of the case. do you think that after a jury has found someone guilty and dismissed someone from the military for sexual assault that one person over the advice of their legal counsel should be able to say never mind? don't you think that someone up the chain should have an opportunity to look at that, if they're going to dismace a jury's conviction? i'm not talking about, i understand that the military is

not the civilian system but i'm trying to envision here the ability of a prosecutor or a defense lawyer or the person who they both work for and that's a weird concept for me to get my arms around, the notion that they could unilaterally, without having to have any justification, for no reason at all just say never mind. i just, i think that is something that most, especially when you realize how serious this problem is, and i may not be able to take you -- talk you out out of the position you just stated but i think the military needs to understand that this is, could be a tipping point. i think. for the american people to rise up particularly the women and say, i don't think one general should be able to overturn a jury. >> well, senator, the commanders including women commanders have this authority for a reason, for a vested reason. and i would just tell you that i would look beyond one case

and -- >> unfortunately, i think i could bring you a lot of cases. i think i could bring you a lot where cases were not brought, where victims were not taken seriously, i think there's a culture issue that's going to have to be addressed here and what this decision did, all it did was underline and put an exclamation point behind the notion that if you are sexually assaulted in the military, good luck. >> well, ma'am, i would just tell you that my troops generally know what i stand for but they also have no doubt what i won't tolerate and i would just tell you i'm not unique in this. you show us someone who conducts themselves in a criminal manner along these lines and i am dry-eyed when i put my beloved troops in jail the rest of their life for all i care. >> and believe i, in some ways i am sad that this occurred right before this hearing and that my time with you today is

covering this subject matter because i have great respect for the leadership of the military, so please don't misinterpret this but i have a high degree of frustration in a system that appears unaccountable for the victims struggling for a piece of justice. >> i respect that senator and i just assure you there is accountability for every general under my command. >> general welsh is going to be hearing about me -- from me about this particular general. i think it's also interesting that both of these people are fighter pilots, they both have served together, and that adds more appearance of impropriety to this particular decision and i'm going to ask general welsh some very difficult questions. thank you very much, general mattis. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. there's going to be a hearing, a sexual assault hearing that

senator jill brand is chairing as chair of our subcommittee. i think even the issue you raise is broader than sexual assault it has to do with the pow ore they have convening authority, -- power of the convening authority and we will ask the department of defense, bob taylor, acting general counsel, to address this issue, if this is ok and consistent with the -- what you have in mind senator mccaskill, i think it's important that we just start getting the general counsel aware of the issue, the no reason at all language in the ucmj and get this committee for starters an opinion as to the source of that language and

to whether or not it is credible to maintain that kind of authority, that no reason at all language in the ucmj. >> i don't want to in any way move in a different direction. it would be terrible to ask the general counsel a question. senator fisher is next. >> i thank senator for your indulgence. thank you, mr. chairman. let's talk about the flexibility, we're looking at $43 billion in cuts. that's right. whether you have the flexibility or not, isn't this a devastating, in the words of secretary panetta we're shooting ourselves in the hand, not in the foot. >> we're going to have a challenge our strategy. we cannot maintain the same --

>> the $43 billion is still a devastating blow whether you have the flexibility or not. is that correct? >> it is, senator, but i don't want the enemy to feel brave right now. i can still deal with them. >> to somehow say if this problem goes away because you're given flexibility is not accurate, right? >> that's correct. >> thank you for the inspiration to the men and women who serve under you. you speak truth to power, i wish more of your colleagues did that as well. on the issue of syria, we're over a million refer rev gees, over 70,000 people who have been massacred. the risk of spillover in jordan is obvious the events of

yesterday. syrian soldiers being martyred or killed in iraq and everything we worried about if we intervened has taken place because we didn't intervene. would you buy that argument? >> i don't know if we could have prevented all of it. >> have we seen a worst-case scenario? >> not yet. >> because that's chemical weapons, right? >> and the further fragmentation of the country and ethnic and sectarian. >> i say that's already happened. and you're saying you want to make sure you get the weapons to the right people. if the support section moves, is that correct, your previous answer? >> yes, sir. >> so, isn't the best way to do that, to give them a sanctuary

area, a no-fly zone and establish themselves as the libians did in benghazi to make sure the weapons get to the right people? >> if i was given the mission, yes, sir, that would be the right way to do that. >> without that, it's pretty obvious that the flow of jihaddists into the country continues unabated. >> yes, sir. >> and the iranian revolutionary is on the ground? >> and bringing in foreign fighters. >> and the russians continue to supply weapons to assad despite veto resolutions? >> yes, sir. >> would you call that an unfair fight? >> i have never been in a fair fight. one side has the advantage and assad has -- >> the other side has the advantage because we refuse to do something, which would make

it a fair fight. >> there are regionsal partners that we have that are taking action. >> many of those weapons have gone to the wrong people. some of our partners are giving weapons to the wrong people. let me switch to afghanistan, if i could. what was your recommendation as the troop levels that should remain behind in afghanistan? >> sir, we initially did not use numbers. we wanted to know what missions are we expected to do. based on that, we got to the 34,000, which i do support the reduction by 34,000, so long as the pace left them there through the fighting season. >> and did it happen? >> it did. >> what about the resideal force? >> post-2014, that decision has

not been made yet and still under consideration. i have made my recommendation. >> which is -- >> a recommendation is for 13,16 -- 13,000 600. >> and how many nato? >> not something i can control, but around 50% of what we provide. >> back to iraq for a moment. aren't you concerned about the unraveling of iraq under with the divisions between barzanii and mall you ki and the continuous terrorist attacks and the polarization of the sunni-shia in places like most you will where you have kurds, where you have everybody there.

in retrospect, do you think the situation would have been better if we had left a resideal force there? >> hard to say if it would have been better, senator mccain. i share the concerns about the kurdish schism. al qaeda is continuing its campaign. the iranian-backed militia shelling the capital city shows that the iranians are not even now above going back even now to work their own way. however, senator, imperfectly as it is, they are still the various parts of the body politic there in iraq are talking with each other. so it is still probably got a level of violence that is slightly below what it was when we were there overall. >> let me just say with respect,

barzani hasn't talked to mall ki in over a year. we could -- could we take assad with cruise missiles? >> not all of them, because they have a number of mobile systems. i would have to do a pretty -- >> we could take out a fair amount? >> yes, sir. >> and the patriots could defend a no-fly zone? >> they are a point defense weapon. they could certainly help in a no-fly zone. >> you would agree that in the top oggra if i in a situation like that, air power is a decisive and important factor in assad's being able to hang on.

and finally, i'm concerned about this withdrawal to the coast, the enclave, and i wonder what you think of the likelihood of that might be? >> it is an economically unsustainable enclave if they go there. so it's not going to be a long-term thing. but it could create a longevity for the regime if they were to lose damascus that right now i think is something we have to consider. in other words, you will see kind of a two-step. as damascus starts to fall, the iranians are helping them to get established there. >> again, general, i have had the great honor of being associated with some outstanding military leaders and i know you will continue to contribute to our nation's security. and i thank you. >> thank you very much, senator mccain. here's the order of battle for

us now. on the democratic side and the republican side. >> mr. chairman, i noticed senator kaine and senator donnelly are here. >> i should have said the next four. >> they looked paniced a little bit. >> number five, six, seven and eight on the democratic side. i should have said the next four. it is senator manchin. >> thank you. and thank you, gentlemen. congratulations on your retirement. with that being said, general, if you would have had the flexibility, and i know there is a lot going back and forth, but

if you had the flexibility and had to do the cuts, the $42.5 billion cut, would you have been able to deploy the harry s. truman on time? >> i have to know what the navy confronts, but i suspect, yes, sir. >> so much said about the amount of money that we spend in the department of defense versus other countries. either one of you have a quick scenario or oversight of the difference of our costs? they tell me the next 10, 15 developing nations of the world combined don't spend as much as we do. what is the high cost of ours, so much differently? >> i think part of is, we are the gold standard. we set the standard from weaponry and technology to the

training and certainly to the coherence of our force, and cohesion who believes they are the best because of the support of the hill. we have global responsibilities and those -- i was born into this time. others made those decisions. but i am often impressed when i walk into offices where at this rank overseas, i say sir, your highness, mr. president or mr. prime minister, just how much other nations look to us to reassure them that they can follow their better instincts and not have to accommodate some pretty ugly situations in the region. >> i find it troubling that the military are losing many of its talented people to private contractors. i talked to your people, a lot of the special forces and they shall being lured away by the

higher salaries. is that not troubling to you, sir? >> statistically, that was true back at the beginning of the war. i think when we saw certainly around 2001 as the wars began to ramp up and the contract base began to build, we were losing a number of our senior n.c.o.'s and that has tapered off considerably and our asession rate into our training pipe lins are as good or better than they have ever been. >> are we reducing our dependency on contractors? >> we are. >> either one of you could speak to this, if you compare pakistan's actions by them having the nuclear weapon and how we are working with them as an ally, i can only imagine what your thoughts would be if iran is able to achieve the same

status for nuclear weapons. i'm sure if you had to do over again, we are probably looking at it differently with pakistan, but your debatest fear is iran having this nuclear arsenal, right? >> that would be the most destabilizing event we could imagine for the middle east, sir. >> another question i have is one that i came out of the vietnamera and that war came to a close quicker than this one. if anyone would have anticipated that we would still be going at this in 13 years, amount of money and time. it brings up the question just for discussion, have you all thought about, with all the budget cuts and different things we can do and staffing of the draft, combined hybrid of the draft with the professional services that we have now? i know for a fact we wouldn't be in a war 13 years if moms and

dads had the input that they had back then. >> senator, i won't take issue with what you just said and we in the military, the all-volunteer force has drawn us a little bit apart from our body politic. but this threat is real. i have dealt with it since 1979. we have -- the shia side declared war on us in the 1980's, blew up our peacekeeper bar racks in beirut. the sunni side of the extremists, al qaeda is how you know them. they tried to take down the trade towers once in the 1990's and took it down the second time. it's a real threat. and one thing about america, it's been willing to meet real threats when we explain it to the american people.

think we would still be here because the enemy would force the issue. >> i agree we will be fighting the war on terror for many generations to come. most americans accept that. but when you look at how we got into afghanistan and then we moved to iraq and now we're back in nation building, there is an awful lot -- i would rather us get out quicker and rebuild america. when you look at the dam that we built in the 1950's and we went back and rebuilt it again and we have spent i think $70 million to finish the project. and inspector general doubts that they have the capability to do that if we gave them the $70 million. that's where we are upset. the money we are putting into an

infrastructure which is incapable of them to maintain. are we moving away from that strategy? admiral, would you say we are? >> i'll allow the general to address the dam issue. but in general, as we in the special operations community work with our partners abroad as i mentioned in my opening statement, we are partnered with 78 nations on any day in the calendar and in a lot of those cases, we are doing minor construction, so nothing like the dam, but being able to build schools and wells and help with small infrastructure projects that are absolutely critical to building our credibility with the host nation. >> we aren't even allowed to brand it by u.s. because of the drawback so we aren't getting

credit for that as we do that infrastructure repair and building. >> are you referring to the dam? >> all the other things, schools or the water supplies and things of that sort. when i was there, if we were afraid or they were afraid to put our name on and give us credit, the united states government. >> it's on a case by case basis. we work with usaid. and every time we go downrange, we work with the u.s. embassy team and we kind of take our lead from the u.s. ambassador there and get together with their foreign assistance folks and we collectively build a plan that makes sense. where it is important for us to articulate that the u.s. has built this particular piece of infrastructure, we absolutely do that. where we think it is sensitive to a allow the locals to receive credit, then it is appropriate. it is not one size fits all.

>> thank you very much, senator. senator lee is next on our order that we operate here again. i thank senator fisher. her generosity is noted. we appreciate it. senator lee. >> thanks to both of you for joining us today and thank you for all you do and your distinguished careers to keep us safe. general, i wanted to start talking to you about syria. your written testimony mentions the dire situation in syria and also refers to the fact that there is a certain amount of disunity among the opposition groups and influence among the al qaeda groups. i would like your assessment on syria. first, what can you tell us about the composition and the objectives of the opposition

forces in syria? and in particular, what can you tell me about the extent to which they have a vision for the future of a post-assad syria? >> senator, the opposition is not completely unified, as you know. it's becoming more unified day by day. the one thing i think all of them agree on is assad has got to go on the opposition side. but after that, it breaks out pretty broadly to include somewhat i would call populous extremist views as well as the ones we find more along the lines of what we would like to see syria come out of this civil war. the vision that some of them have is clearly inconsistencies what we would like to see. and these are the jihadist elements that are there, the

extremist elements, the foreign fighters who have come in who simply want to create another chaotic background to put in their roots and have a new place to operate from. >> what's your sense as to where the center of gravity is? obvious, there are some those like you just described, the jihadist elements, as you put it? is there where the center of gravity is? is that where the heartland of the opposition forces are? >> sir, when you look at the syrian national coalition or what you read is the s.n.c. and i have to refer to my notes here in order to keep accurate and you have the syrian opposition council. those are one and the same thing. where you see them imagining tracks and coherence, that's carrying a message to the assad regular eement that there is an opposition that is unified

against them. at the same time, there's a military council below that and that military council is what actually carries out the operations there inside the country. >> you can't give me a thumbnail sketch of whether there is a minority fax or fringe fax, solid plurality or majority fax that is -- faction that takes the jihadist approach? >> that is a significant minority that takes the jid hadist approach with the front imagining tracks. >> it's those organizations that are a significant minority, not amounting to a majority, but a significant minority that have links to al qaeda or to some

other terrorist group or some other group that might be related to or similar to al qaeda? >> i believe that's correct. they have a powerful propoganda and use humanitarian efforts in addition to their well-armed trainers to fill a broader reach among the opposition. >> and i assume that the respective visions for a post-assad-syria would break down to what's motivating them now, would that be correct? >> i believe so, yes, sir. >> in the time i've got remaining, i would like to talk to you a little bit about the threats that we face elsewhere in the region. i certainly agree with our president who said in his state of the union address a couple of weeks ago, we will do what's necessary to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i strongly support that.

and i suspect nearly all of my colleagues do as well. but the decision to decrease the size of our contrary presence in the persian gulf worries me because it could be sending a different message. budget uncertainty surrounding sequestration is forcing the department of defense to take a number of difficult steps. but i remain concerned about where the administration's priorities are when we weaken our presence in a region of such huge strategic importance to our national security. let me ask you, where our removal of an aircraft carrier from the persian gulf affect our ability to deter iranian action in the gulf or elsewhere in the region? >> obviously, it is more difficult for me to reassure our

friends and to deter iran, but i believe that a strong statement of political will and the forces i have there right now would cause iran to take pause before they decide to try to take advantage of what is not really an opportunity. i can buy the time to get the second carrier out there, but the combat power i have right now in the gulf. >> do you think you will be ok with the time we have to get it out there? >> yes, sir, i do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator lee. senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your service and thank you for being here this morning. general, all my colleagues have said, we will miss you and very much appreciate your years of service to this country. i want to start by following up on some of the issues that

senator lee was raising. when you were here for your posture hearing last year, general mattis, one of the things we discussed was the chemical weapons in syria and secretary panetta was quoted as saying that the situation in syria is 100 times worse than what we saw in syria with the proliferation of womens and it has been described as a nightmare scenario by a number of officials. i assume that it's safe to say that your concerns since that hearing last year have not diminished and you continue to be very concerned about the presence of the stockpiles of chemical weapons in syria. >> yes, senator, absolutely. >> and there's been discussion about the red line that has been drawn should syria attempt to use those chemical weapons

either on their own people or on others in the region. and a suggestion that the international community is also concerned, equally concerned about that. but what happens should they try to transfer those weapons to hezbollah and they then get transferred throughout the region? has there been planning for how to address that? and how to prevent that from happening? >> yes, ma'am. that would be a policy decision by the president. i have military options if he wants to prevent -- if he wants to disrupt that. it would be very difficult to to prevent it at the beginning, either a use or transfer. but as fast as we picked it up, we could disrupt it and may be able to prevent further

transferor use. >> has nato and other countries, have they also been involved in those contingency plans? >> yes, ma'am. >> and is there any reason that we should have less concern about what's happening there rather than more concern? and how can we affect what happens to those chemical weapons? what can you share with us about the kings si planning that should -- contingency planning that should make us more concerned? >> in the chaos that assad has created and the civil war that's grown out of it, i believe we have increasingly vulnerable chemical sites there as the fighting swings back and forth

and weapons get transferred from one vulnerable site to one they believe is more secure. certainly the material aspects of their leadership could cause them to do things that causes us to keep a very close eye on them. our planning is taking this into account to the degree that it can. and i'll tell you, we have options prepared. >> and have any of the opposition groups that we're talking to been involved in any of those discussions or any of those plans? >> no, ma'am. i should say not by u.s. central command. we have not engaged with the opposition 6 -- groups on this. >> i want to switch from syria

to pakistan, because obviously that is one of the other parts of the central command where there are serious concerns about the impact on our actions in afghanistan. and i wonder if you could talk about what the current status is of our relationship with the military and pakistan and the tri-lateral engagement on the border between afghanistan and pakistan is working or not working today? >> senator, i don't want to overstate it, but our military-to-military relationship with pakistan has been improving and this is not recent. this goes back over the last year, even in the aftermath of the salala incident where we accidentally killed 24 of their

frontier troops. the border itself, the tri-lateral cooperation is actually much improved over a year ago or two years ago. it's not everything we need it to be, but it is improving and we have other efforts going on, including track 2 efforts under former dr. perry, and former secretary of state schultz out of palo alto, where we have retired officers to improve collaboration and help set the conditions for longer term prosperity, peace in that region. >> and how will that work once isap pulls out with the afghan and pakistani forces? do you expect the collaboration to continue? and senator levin and i had the

opportunity a year and a half ago, to see first hand the attempted collaboration at a time when it had really broken down and they were talking about the potential effectiveness of that. and obviously, that's going to be critical as we withdraw in terms of maintaining stability in the region. so what kinds of plans are in place to help address that once isap withdraws? >> that's a question question, because we identified that as part of our key transition a year ago. and since then, we no longer meet as nato isap, it is nato and the afghan security forces and we meet in these tri-laterals as you referenced them and we have to continue to mature it. but right now, senator, it's going in the right direction and

day by day, we build a little bit more trust, a little more cooperation, a little more collaboration along that contentious border. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. senator fisher. >> thank you general and admiral for your service and for the service of those you represent as well. admiral, earlier, i believe you stated that with the sequester and the c.r., we were looking at creating a readiness problem. what are you doing now that is absolutely essential and that we need to keep on doing with special ops? >> i mean our first and foremost mission is to take care of the war fighting requirements downrange. my support to the other commandant commanders is my number one war fighting priority, operational priority.

the problem with the c.r. and the sequestration is that it is beginning to affect my readiness back forces. as i prioritize the training, i'm prioritizing it forward, but will come at the expense of the next generational forces that begin to deploy downrange. my ability to manage that budget and continue to provide the very best special operations forces is exactly what i intend to do. if you look at our flying hours as an example, 60% of our conus-based training flying hours. that bathtub will continue from this fiscal year to the next fiscal year. it will get smaller, but will get smaller. it takes time to catch up once you stand down training. if you look at the flying hours and cutting the recruiting base and other training, so that readiness bathtub will move

throughout until we catch up several years from now to stem the lack of readiness. but we take care of our operational priorities first but we are mortgaging our readiness in the future. >> the troops that you represent, do you believe in a you're putting them at risk whether they are going to be in row taste longer since the readiness and training is not there so they can benefit from some rest when they are off duty? do you see that as a major risk? if so, i would like to hear why? if not, i would like to hear the major risks that you are facing due to these cuts. >> we work hard with -- i have subordinate service components that work for me. one of my biggest concerns has been the pressure on the force and making sure that the personnel tempo and operational

tempo is great. we take a number of pretty dramatic and important steps to ensure that those forces have the rest they need when they are back in the continental united states before we cycle them forward again. i don't want to mislead you. there are high-demand, low specialty codes. some of the intelligence requirements we have, some of the information officers, those sorts of high demand but in low density, require them to rotate a little bit more quickly forward. again, i'm working hard as they come back to the continental united states not to impress upon them additional training and give them a little bit more time. >> under the current command structures that you face, do you see any limitations being imposed on our special ops forces? >> no, ma'am. i'm very pleased with the kind

of command relationships i have and the command authorities that i have. so right now, i'm a support team commander to the combatant commanders like general mattis and others. i provide them the forces. they will have the operation, command and control and i'm comfortable. >> you don't think any changes need to be made with regards to that? >> not in regards to the command relationships with the combatant commanders in terms of the forces that are under their operational control, no, ma'am, i do not. >> do you think there needs to be any additional legal authority for our soldiers in order for them to train with our partners? >> that is an area that we are taking a look at. right now, one of the amendments that presents some problems for us is the leahy amendment not only do we have to vet the individual, but the units to make sure there are no human

rights violations and we are absolutely in favor and we understand the value and the importance of making sure we have good, clean human rights. unfortunately, at a time sometimes when those units need to have our partnership and our relationships and so they understand what right looks like, that's a time in which we find ourselves more constrained than ever if there is a human rights violation, frankly, i would offer that then more than ever we need to get engaged and make sure they do what is right. that's an area that we are exploring, both with the cjcs. >> you have discussed that with the regional commanders, i assume? >> yes, ma'am. >> and their reactions? >> they all have similar issues. the special operations officers that i provide them find themselves constrained in certain circumstances in the units we are dialing with. it is a concern and i think we are working through the

appropriate processes now. >> thank you very much. general, do you think that it's working well together? do you have any concerns on decisions being made? >> ma'am, we have got the best working relationship between conventional and special forces that i have enjoyed in the 40 years of service. there is no longer any lines between us. the collaboration is intense. it's been learned the hard way, frankly, in the toughest school we could have had. and right now the dre of confidence in each other and the use of each other's capabilities is at the top of its game, but we aren't complacent. we don't want to lose as the wars grind down so we will have to work hard to maintain it. >> thank you for your years of service. you have a sterling reputation, thank you. >> senator haguen. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and i want to echo everybody's thoughts -- both of you, you have given so many years of service to our country and we admire and respect and appreciateal of your commitment to our military and national security of our country, so thank you very much. admiral, i wanted to ask a question about the women in combat now that former secretary panetta and general dempsey ended the clution rule for female service members. i know that you publicly highlighted the contributions that women have made to our special operations missions, including the cultural support teams. the military information support teams, the civil military support elements and other roles. and i understand the department's recent decision for women. this is going to open up thousands of new positions for women and including many in the special operations, too.

i wanted to get your overall thoughts of how this is going to be carried out under you. how have women contributed to our special operations missions in recent years and what additional contributions do you see that will be possible given this policy change and how is socom going to respond to this? and how will you address the need to maintain strict standards for assessment and selection for the male and female special operators? and will there be exceptions -- exceptions or waivers to keep any of the units all male? just a series of thoughts. >> first, as you mentioned, the women that have served in special operations have done an absolutely magnificent and heroic job. we have within our cultural

support teams and for the broader forum here, they are partnered with our rangers and our seals and our special forces elements downrange. they go on target in very hostile environments and proven themselves again and again. those are in small numbers, but have been very valuable. the policy right now from the secretary of defense, we are required to provide him a brief-back on the 15th of may that will tell him how we are going to implement the new policy. what it will require me to do, i'm going to build the plan before 15 may and brief the secretary of how we are going to get there. it will take us some time to do the assessments to determine whether or not we need to address the standards. whether we are going to do that and fit in into the training pipeline, critical mass of female trainers and students to

incorporate the military specialties. we will go through that analysis here in the next year or so. and then if we find that there are areas where we just cannot meet the requirements without lowering the standards without unduly affecting the cohesion of the small units, we will come forward to the secretary for an exception to policy. having said that, my going imposition is, we are going to find a way to make this work. so my staff and we are working very closely with the services. as you know the services all have equities in this in terms of the m.o.s.'s that we have, but i have an agreement with the service chiefs. i will be looking at those special operations, unique m.o.s.'s, so the green beer as and navy seals, the -- i will

input. >> i thought the key point was not to lower the standards. when you say assess the standards, i don't think anyone is saying lower the standards? >> no, ma'am. i was asked at a press conference a couple of weeks back about the concept of the gender-neutral standards. we never had gender standards. we have a standard. that's the standard. it's a standard we have had for a long time and important standard. that doesn't mean we don't need to assess that standard to make sure it is appropriate. but there is absolutely, positively no intent to lower the standard. we want to provide the nation the finest special operations we can irrespective of gender. >> so many of the women i have talked to, they have been attached to a number of units, they haven't been assigned and haven't gotten credit for the career ladder and has harmed many, many individuals and i think many of them saw the

writing on the wall and decided not to make this a continued career. i think it's a good step and it's a very beneficial step for our military, too. >> yes, ma'am. >> general mattis, i know senator ma cast kill had questions or sex aal assault. some stats i have seen suggests that half of the women reported being sexually harassed and 25% have said they were sexually assaulted. i have been to afghanistan three times. iraq, pakistan, and women do tend to talk to other women. and i was really shocked at some of the bases and an instance where individuals shared where me that they literally were concerned about the amount of fluid that they would drink in the afternoon because they found

it dangerous to go to the bathroom at night. and when i think about an issue, how that would impact somebody who is fighting for our country to be concerned about their safety, it makes you wonder that we've got to take this seriously and do something about it. my question is, what is the current state of this problem within the citcom and what is being done about the issue of sexual assault and will the draw down in afghanistan present any unique challenges? >> i don't believe the drawdown will present unique challenges. the environment, whether they are in build-up, drawdown, it really comes down to the alertness of the chain of command. it comes down to the command climate. it comes down to the commanders' intent and his or her ability to

articulate clearly what is acceptable behavior and the authority of commanders to deal with unacceptable behavior thanks to the ucmj that is given them by the u.s. congress is more than sufficient to maintain the discipline. but i can assure you that we take this seriously. we took it seriously a long time ago. it's not new. i'm keenly aware of the disappointing statistics and some of the anecdoteal word that we get and we take that for action is what i will tell you. and again we have the authority to deal with people who think it's an option. it's not an option to not act like a jerk or in a criminal manner. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank both of you what you do for our country. >> senator graham. general, what are you going to do when you retire? >> i have no idea, but it's

going to be a lot of fun. >> i would hire you, but we don't have any money up here. [laughter] >> syria, do both of you agree or disagree with the statement that we should be arming at least a portion of the rebels in syria to bring this thing to an end sooner rather than later? >> we as the military, i do not believe that i have the situational awareness to do it. if given the mission, would i do it? absolutely? >> we could do it, but as the general mentioned, a very confusing situation and i'm not sure we are in a position to do that right now. >> are you against arming the rebels or you don't have enough information? >> in my case, they are being armed right now. >> but not by us. >> that's correct. >> do you have enough information to give us visas to whether or not we should as

americans arm a portion of the i reserve the balance of my time. snells >> it's a policy decision, sir. i think if we know who the weapons are going to, it certainly is an option that would complicate assad's stay in power. >> iran, do you believe that 2013 is the year of reckoning when it comes to iran? >> senator, i seem to have a year of reckoning, so, again, i'm paid to be a sentinel so i consider 2013 the year of reckoning. >> you believe the sanctions were not working in detering them from acquiring a new exabblet, is that correct? >> that's correct. their nuclear industry continues. >> what is the likelihood that they would work in the future, in your view? >> i believe this regime, knowing it can't win the affections of its own people, i think they are very concerned that the economic sanctions could turn the people against

them, in which case, i think the cost benefit, they would be willing to give up the nuclear effort to stay in power. >> you think that's the most likely scenario if we continue sanctions? >> i think we have to continue sanctions, but have other options ready. >> do you believe that the israelis would attack iran if they believed they had reached a critical point in terms of nuclear capability? >> the israelis have said so. >> if they did attack iran, would they need our help militarily? >> they could conduct a strike without a help. >> would it be in our interest to help them in your view? >> that would depend on what the objective of the strike is. is it to stop them. is it to delay them, is it how long you want to delay them, is it a broader effort.

>> if we had to use military force against the iranian nuclear program, would you recommend a limited strike or should we go after their navy, air force and revolutionary guard? >> senator, i think that is advice that i owe confidentiality to the president on, but i could meet you separately and answer that question fully. >> if the iranians develop a nuclear capability, how certain are you that other nations in the region would acquire an equal capability? >> at least one other nation has told me they would do that at a leadership level. they have assured me they would not stay without a nuclear weapon if iran was armed. >> was that a sunni arab state? >> yes, sir. >> likelihood of sunni arab states acquiring nuclear capability is great, would you not agree? >> i agree and also non-arab

sunni states in the general region. >> let's talk about the budget. admiral, you say that your budget is being reduced by 23%. when you look at the c.r. as well as sequestration. over a 10-year window, the sequestration is fully implemented, what does it do to your command? >> sir, over 10-year window, will cut us by $10 billion. sequestration alone is $900 million. so therebs. >> what does that mean to your ability to help defend this nation? >> sequestration alone is a 10% cut to my budget. i could get into eaches but you think about 10% reduction in readiness and capability. >> would we have a hollow force

if we implemented sequestration? >> sir, i am confident i could operate the special operations community so we wouldn't have a hollow force as a result of sequestration alone. >> what about you, general? what about the marine corps? >> i can't speak for the marine corps, i'm outside of that. sequestration, bottom line, we will do less with the military in the future. our goal is not to do with less well, snerds, keep the sense of purpose and keep them at the top of their game. it would be a smaller force and do less with it. >> when people like myself go around the country and say if you implement sequestration the way it's designed where 2/3 of the budget is not affected, only one-third and 50% of what's left comes out of d.o.d. on top of what we have done and personnel is exempt, we would be doing

great damage to our national security, am i overstating that? >> no, sir. you are not overstating that. and if i can, kind of continue on with the soft side of this, because what is unappreciated sometimes is while i will take about $900 million a year in cuts, i get a lot of my support from the service he. the service cuts that they take compound the problem of special operations support. so to clarify my earlier comments. i can manage the special operations force, those that are bad special operations, officers and n.c.o.'s, but i get a tremendous amount of my support from the various services and that will absolutely affect the special operations capability of this nation. >> am i correct in my statements to my fellow constituents that -- my colleagues, that sequestration would do a lot of damage to our military?

>> yes, sir. it would. >> maybe we will have a second round. at the end of the 10-year sequestration, we will be at 2.41% of g.d.p. in terms of military spending. 1940, we were at 1.6% and 9/11, we were at 3%. we will be at an incredibly low number. and in 1962, 49% of spending was on the military. 30% on entitlements. today, 61.9% of the federal budget is spent on entitlements. 18.7 on the military if we don't deal with entitlements. we are going to become agrees. so i have a couple of other questions but i'll wait for a second round if that's possible. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, both, to our

service to our nation. we thank every member of the armed services who comes before us and many who do not when we encounter them, but you both really ex emapply file the strength and courage that we seek from our military and your records of service, i think, are simply extraordinary. so a special thanks to each of you and your staffs for the great work you have done for our country. i want to follow some of the questions that senator graham has been asking, because i think the american people should be really deeply troubled that our special operation forces are going to be cut, not ines creased. after all, the president's strategy, his vision for the future of our military readiness is for special operations to

play a greater role and be supported more, not less in resources and budget and i personally feel that approach is critical to our nation's security. so my question, admiral, is how do you make these kinds of cuts consistent with that approach that emphasizes special operations as the centerpiece, the tip of the spear of our nation's readiness going forward? i don't know how i can go back to the people of connecticut and say, you know, everything's fine, but we are cutting special operations by 10%. so i put that question to you. i think it's a difficult question for us as elected officials. and i'm hoping that now and going into the future, you will

have an answer. >> sir, make no mistake about it. the sequestration and on top of that the continuing resolution will have a dramatic impact on special operations now and into the future. the president and secretary charged me to manage the best force i can to provide combat- capable special operations forces to the combat dant commanders. however, having said that, we tend to have to mortgage a little bit of the future. it will not be apparent i don't think to the combatant commanders or to the american people the cuts they will have on special operations as we begin to cut back on our flying programs or our recruiting base, as we begin to cut back on some of the modifications we are going to do our helicopters, on the deployments. before long, there is an effect,

a global effect with the reduction and capability of the special operations forces. i can't tell you when that line is going to come, when we are going to hit that mark where now the forces i'm deploying are not the quality forces what the american people expect. make no mistake about it, as we move forward with the sequestration cuts and the c.r. stays in effect, we will hit that line sooner than later. >> we have some time -- and i'm not going to ask you for how much, but the sooner the better we reverse these cuts so as to avoid the lasting damage to our national security? >> the problems are current. i don't want to lead you to believe that the cuts that we are incurring now or accepting now are not affecting the force now. they are. i have cut some of my deployments by 20% and some cases 60% in some of my less

-forward units. so the effect is -- it is having an effect now but it will be magnified into the future. >> do either of you differ with the statement which i happen to think is true that iran continues to be determined to develop a nuclear capability? >> senator, they are enriching uranium beyond any plausible peaceful purpose. >> and you share that view, admiral? >> i do, sir. >> whether there has been a slowdown, a pause, however the intelligence community may refer to it, that basic ambition is still there? you would agree with that? >> i would, sir, and by their own public announcements they have brought advanced centrifuges online and refusing

the aiea to look at the site and continuing their program. >> i'm going go to jump to another topic and there is little continuity between the subjects but that is the nature of this questioning process as i'm sure you know. on sexual assault, an area that has concerned me, as a prosecute for -- prosecutor as a good part of my professional career as well as a member of this committee. one of the current weaknesses in our system of detering as well as punishing sexual assault in the military seeps to me the nature of the reporting of complaints, but also the decisions as to whether someone is held criminally responsible, in other words, the decision within the command structure is,

in fact, within that command made by generally someone to whom the complainant and the potential defendant report. and that system is somewhat unique because of the nature of the military. there has to be a command structure. i am posing to you the question whether, if that decision-making function, whether to prosecute, whether to hold a predatory criminally responsible and taken away from the commander, whether that would severely undermine the capability of that commander to effectively command whether it's at the regular meant or whatever level that decision is made. >> it would severely undermine

his command authority. any time the commander is no longer responsible for good order and discipline, you have set the groundwork perhaps for the best of reasons or best of intentions to leave the commander in a more circumscribed situation and that is not something that is good and something a force that is put together for the use of violent action. he must be seen, she must be seen as the ultimate arbiter of good order and discipline in that unit where you are possibly addressing one issue and creating a box of other issues that history will tell you will not work out well. . . . >> i will tell you that in

cases where there are felony charges against an individual, those felony charges are generally resolved by a court marshall as opposed to an individual commander. they're taken out of the commander's hands if they're felony charges in some cases and in some cases they're prosecuted in a civilian court. so, the characterization that a commanding officer at a battalion level can come to his own decision on a felony charge of rape i think is a mischaracterization of the usmj. again, i will defer -- ucmg. again i will defer to the military lawyers who have that expertise. but in my many years of exercise in the ucmj. i have found one. it is absolutely, critical to maintaining good order and discipline in a unit. those cases that are beyond the commander's per view by law are referred to a professional lawyer, a judge, a military

judge, and a courts marshal much like we have in the civilian system. so the earlier characterization of ucmj as an arbitrary decision by a commander to take care of one of his buddies i think is a mischaracterization of the ucmj. >> thank you. my time has expired. i really want to thank you for your very helpful and forthright responses and again for your service. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. senator donnelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to general mattis, admiral mcraven, thank you for your service to the nation and, general mattis, thank you so much fory an extraordinary career devoted to the men and women of our services and to our country. thank you so very, very much. general mattis, in regards to p.c.a., what would you say -- pakistan, what would you say is the state of where our relationship is right now compared to some of the peeks and valleys that we have had in the past and where we are at the present time as you see it?

>> senator, we are on an improving trajectory. it's been improving for probably the last year, maybe eight months. and we have some valid reasons, i think, to see it continue to improve into the near future as we try to get our two countries to find common ground wherever possible. >> what do you see as we come home from afghanistan, how do you see pakistan's reaction in relation to afghanistan regarding that? >> well, in pakistan as well as central asia, senator donnelly, there's a lot of concern about what's going to be there after the nato forces come out. i think that the afghan security forces which are performing better will give a certain amount of credence to the idea that the success we've achieved to date not transient. it can be sustained. and i think the more we can get

the current trilateral effort of nato, afghan and pakistan dwross work together, mortgage we'll -- pakistanis to work together, the more we'll work for the afghans and pakistanis to take control of that border region at a higher level than they've enjoyed before. >> and as a big part of this also, as we move forward, is the afghan-pakistan relationship, what is your best estimate of that relationship right now and where that seems to be heading? >> sir, pakistan, as you know, has lost more troops in this fight than nato combined and as they go through this fight in an area of their country where they have never had a lot of control, they're going to have to exercise a degree of control they have not exercised, been able to exercise always in the past. there are a number of areas where they're actually

improving their control right now but it is militarily the most difficult terrain i've ever operated in along that border recent -- region. so this is not easy, the enemy is well dug in, they're hard to get at, but the pakistani military is moving against them and we'll just have to try and keep the collaboration along the border continuing on the trajectory it's on now if we're going to have success. >> are the afghans and pakistanis, are they cooperating more or is it still a trust-but-verify-type relationship? >> there's dissatisfaction that has been articulated by the afghans about the havens on the pakistan side of the border. of course there's some of these terrorists who use the afghan side of the border to attack pakistan. so they both recognize they have to work together. it's imperfect right now.

there are concerns that i don't want to wish away or dismiss but at least it's going in the right direction and i think nato is a big facilitator to why it's going in the right direction right now, getting the pakistani and afghan officers to talk together, to work together. >> and there's a report this morning and i know it is not in your particular area, but in some ways it may come back to that, that north korea is again ratcheting up and has said that on march 11 they're looking at possible surgical strike actions. what do you see as the relationship between iran and north korea and how much of the technology that iran is developing is coming from that direction? and is that going to be a substantial force for iran's information in further developing what they have? and that would be for either of you. >> it's a great question,

senator donnelly. i would like to get back to you with a more complete answer but your instincts, your thoughts are on target. there is a connection and the degree to which that connection provides real progress for iran i cannot say in open hearing and i -- but i will get back to you, senator. >> thank you, general. and admiral, one of the strongest parts of our state's, my state's, indiana's, assistance to the united states armed forces is crane naval warfare. i know one of the areas they work on and this is without getting into too much technical detail, is developing technology for special operations forces. i want to you know we consider that a privilege. but then also in terms of our special ops, is there going to be a continuing emphasis on the

technical improvements as we move forward? >> sir, there absolutely will. and crane, indiana, is one of our key depots for supporting special operations, sir, as you know. i have vasted -- visited crane a number of times. magnificent d.o.d. civilians there and contractors and military officers and enlisted that are supporting our efforts and that will continue. >> thank you. and, general, one of the areas in regards to the syrian conflict that we hear is what will happen if the rentals are successful -- rebels are successful to non-muslim faith communities? will there be a cleansing? will there be a perjurying? and i was just wonder -- purging? i was just wondering if there have been any discussions in regards to their forces, as to their intentions in that area.

>> sir, the kind of extremists we're most concerned about they are not the opposition, not the people that are trying to unseat assad and we understand where they're coming from and where they want to take their country. but these extremists who are taking advantage of the current situation and the iranian-inspired and supported what i would call militias that they're going to have ready in the event assad falls so they've still got some influence, they have a pretty medieval philosophy and i would anticipate the worst from them. but they don't represent the opposition either. >> do you know if there are any plans being made by either ourselves or the rebels who in some cases, you see the rebels that these extremist groups are working right next door to them, are the rebels aware of the potential of this danger? >> i believe in many cases they

are and they're uncomfortable with those folks working next door to them. at the same time, they're in a pretty rough fight and i think they're willing to let that bygones be bygones at this time in order to try to win this fight and deal with that issue once they've gotten rid of assad. but of course that's always -- that always brings its own dangers, senator. >> thank you again for everything you've done, admiral, for your continued service, and, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator hirono. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to join my colleagues and thanking general mattis and admiral mcraven for your service to our country. and also thank the men and women in our -- in your respective commands for the hard work that they do on behalf of all of us. and of course, general mattis, with 41 years of service, my congratulations to you upon

your retirement. my very best wishes go with you. i know that my -- some of my colleagues have focused on sexual assault prevention in the military. so i share their concerns and i am looking forward to the personnel subcommittee's hearing that will focus on these issues. so i won't go into that. but just wanted to let you know that i share those concerns. general mattis, in your testimony you talked about the most serious strategic risk to the u.s. national security in the central region and one of these areas was, and you said, perhaps the greatest risk to u.s. interest in this area is the perceived lack of u.s. commitment. particularly with regard to what happens in afghanistan, middle east peace, syria. and then you note that if we seek to influence events, we must listen to partner concerns and continue to demonstrate our support through tangible actions. can you give me examples of

what you would define as tangible actions to make sure that people in this region understand we have a continuing commitment? >> to the president, that manifests itself as u.s. forces that work within the framework of u.s. foreign policy, to reassure our friends and make certain our enemies know that we're there, we're going to stand by our friends and work with them. it involves bringing officers from various militaries overseas to our schools here in the united states. so that we create relationships with them. and create a degree of interoperability. it means that we have our special forces and conventional forces training alongside their forces, nothing builds those personal relationships faster than probably the education and training efforts. it also means that we're going to be selling equipment, high-tech american equipment, to countries that share our

security interests as we made certain that we can operate alongside them and they'll be equipped with some of the best equipment in the world should we have to fight together. and taken together, that serves as a deterrent so hopefully we never have to go into that fight. but those would be some of the tangible things that we can do, madam chairman. >> and obviously we need to -- ma'am. >> and obviously we need to continue those efforts. it's a long-term kind of relationship building that we are going to need to engage in in this highly volatile, unstable area of the world. >> absolutely, senator. >> when senator hagen's confirmation hearing occurred and now is he the secretary of defense, i asked him some questions about the rebalance to the pacific. and so that is not your command but i'm just wondering, do you support the rebalance to the pacific in light of the realities that we are facing in that area of the world?

>> senator, i completely support it. we do have three anchors in the middle east. one of them is our friends and partners there that must not face the future alone without the reassurance that we're with them. one is of course oil, that fuels the global economy. global economy that we're intimately connected to, with the american economy. and the third are the violent extremists that come out of this region threatening civilization everywhere. whether it be india or indonesia, you know, united kingdom or north africa. this is a problem that we all have to work with. so we have three anchors that will keep us firmly committed in the middle east but i completely support the president's declared shift to the pacific. >> thank you. admiral mcraven, following our move out of iraq and leaving

afghanistan also on the horizon, as you look forward do you see the roles of our special operators changing or moving to a different primary mission and what would be the factors that you would consider in making any kind of a change for our special ops? -- ops program? >> thank you, senator. as we draw down in afghanistan, that will certainly provide me more capacity in special operations forces that i can then provide to the combatant commanders. you talk about the rebalancing to the pacific. ists out about admiral locklear a little over a month ago, had an opportunity to spend a fair amount of time in the pacific. in my navy s.e.a.l. career i grew up in the pacific, if you will, and as you know we have had we, the special operations community have had wonderful relations in the pacific for many, many, many decades from korea down to australia and every country in between. so we very much value our relationship in the pacific.

i will tell you that i think as we look at special operations moving forward, we always need to maintain our ability to rescue americans and to capture or eliminate the terrorist threats. so that kind of direct action approach is an important part of what we in special operations do. but i will tell you, the current and future aspect of special operations i think is equally if not more important, how we go about building our partners' capacity, how we allow them to deal with their own security problems. so, part of the strategy of u.s. special operations command, building off the defense strategic guidance put in place in 2012 by secretary panetta, is to work with the combatant commanders, work with the chiefs, work with the host nations and figure out where can we apply our special operations resources to best help the nations that are inclined to help themselves and deal with these problems? >> i don't know if this is a setting in which you can mention some of those countries in which you are working very

closely to enable them to enhance their own capacity to engage in special ops. >> yes, ma'am. one of the great success stories we've had is working with our filipino partners. of course we've been -- we, special operations, and i can tell you we have been in the philippines for decades and had great relationship with the filipino armed forces. but really since 9/11, as the filipinos aggressively went after terrorists, they requested and we supported them and in building their special operations building and capacity. i had an opportunity a little over a month ago to visit those areas and i will tell you the success is remarkable. the degree of stability, the people see the filipino army as a credible, reliable, important

partner. be a e.u. sigh of is not completely gone but they are on the ropes and i give tremendous credit to the government of the philippines and our support to the government of the philippines in dealing with that problem. but the philippines is one example. we have been partnered with our south korean brothers for a long time and i can go from south korea to singapore to australia -- >> any country in the middle east? >> just about every country in the pacific, yes, ma'am. >> any country in the central command? >> oh, yes, ma'am. we are partnered with general mattis and most of our allies in the central command as well. >> so general mattis, what he's doing very much is in line with our showing the continuing commitment that we have that addresses your perception issue that you talked about? >> yes, ma'am. as we draw down in afghanistan, as we draw down on some of our forces, you saw that the harry s. truman battle group will not deploy right now. we just have to make certain that's not misinterpreted as a

-- misinterpreted as a pullback, that we stay fully engaged and there's a number of ways to do so, not just military. that's the area i'm concerned with and admiral mcraven is concerned with, but there's nasm ways to do it, not all of them cost a lot of money. but it's critical that we do it. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hirono. thank you for the testimony today and for your service to each of you. i intended to make my questions heavily focused on budget but i think you've done a very good job of covering the sequester c.r. effects. i went to the pentagon yesterday on my way into town to stop and visit with secretary hagel, deputy secretary carter and general of the arnow and then i went to the lunch room and talked to active vet guard, reserve and d.o.d. civilians and contractors that were there and the message i came away with loud and clear is something that you've underlined today, the need for us to provide some certainty so that you can do

the best with the records you have. i think the optimal situation would be for our national security strategy to drive our budget. a distant second would be for our budget strategy to drive our national security. but we're sort of in the far distant third which was budgetary indecision driving national security decisions and that is -- that's very dangerous. and i think your testimony encourages us to try to do some of our best work. you are risk toleraters. you run the risk. the risk that you shouldn't have to tolerate is a waivering political commitment or political indecision in terms of providing you the backup that you need. let me just talk for a second about iran. good discussion today. one of the questions that i have is, as we are evaluating one of the -- what are the right options for our country, to make sure that iran does not obtain nuclear capacity or nuclear weapons, one of the keys to that is the confidence level that we have about our

own intelligence regarding iranian activity. and that intelligence is both our own but also credible intelligence that we're able to receive from allies. without going into classified material, i'd be kind of curious as to each of your confidence level in our sbl surrounding the current -- intel surrounding the current status of iranian activities regarding their nuclear plans. >> senator, first i would just tell you that in 40-odd years in the u.s. military, i have never enjoyed the level of intelligence and the anticipation i'm able to achieve as i do today in this job. it is phenomenal. and it allows me insights that i know nobody else has in terms of outside the u.s. government. >> and, general, is that both the intelligence that we generate but also the credible intelligence that we are able to share appropriately with allies? >> absolutely, sir. and that they share with us, i

might add. which is invaluable. but i would also tell that you this program inside a closed country that's virtually a police state, its ability to conduct denial and deception operations means that i stay in a very watchful mode as does our intelligence community and i think we have to assume that in some cases we would not know something, a decision made in a very small cohort of people and perhaps other hidden sites like the one revealed by our president a couple years ago. i have to assume they have other hidden sites where certain activities could be going on. so the decision itself and what's going on at those hidden sites, senator kaine, could -- it could take a while for us to find something like that. it's just the normal give and take of the intel world. >> admiral mcraven, any

additional comments on that? >> sir, nothing but to add to what general mattis said. as the special operations commander, i see virtually everything general mattis sees in terms of the intelligence products and i would echo his sentiments, that the intelligence community both within the u.s. and the external communities that provide us that insight is truly incredible. >> admiral mcraven, we have such a special forces footprint in the commonwealth and in senator levin's opening comments he referred to the work that you've done in stress on force studies and recommendations to follow. i would just like you to talk a bit about that, what are some of the things that you're doing within special forces to deal with this, you know, up-tempo operation, the effect upon our warriors and their families? >> thank you, senator, i appreciate the question. my predecessor did a wonderful job of identifying the problem early on. and he put together a

pressure-on-the-force task force and they went out and interviewed about 7,000 service members, about 1,000 spouses. they had 440 different meetings and it was about a 10-month assessment to determine the pressure on the special operations force. about the time i took command back in the summer of 2011, that report just a couple days after i took command landed on my desk. it was very apparent that as admiral olson had said, the force was frayed at the time. candidly, in the last 18 months, the force has continued to fray. and i'm committed to making sure that the force that i leave my successor and his successor is healthy and capable of doing the mission the nation expects us to do. as a result of that, i took the pressure on the force and we changed the name and the focus and it is now preserving the force and the families. we have spent time working with capitol hill, working with the services who provide us a lot of our support, to make sure that we have the right programs

in place for not only our members, which we do pretty well, but also for the families. and i have made a point of stating that the readiness of the members directly related -- member is directly related to the readiness of the family. there are a lot of programs out there that allow us to take good care of our members but not so much the families. so we're working against with capitol hill and o.s.d. and others to figure out how can we find the programs, the appropriate programs where we can take care of our families so service members will be ready to do the job and frankly it is absolutely the right thing to do, to take care of those families that have been supporting this nation along with their service member for so very long. so, i'm pleased i have a full time task force that does nothing but work with my component commanders and their service components to make sure that we're taking care of the tactical and the headquarters elements as well. so it's a pretty aggressive, but as i said, i want to make

sure the force is healthy for years to come, sir. >> thank you, admiral. appreciate hearing that status report. one last question, general mattis, for you, kind of a big-picture question to take advantage of your lengthy experience. when i was elected lieutenant governor of virginia, we had a virginia guard as all states did that was a reserve force. 12 years later, as i now am a junior senator, we have a virginia guard that's had significant operational experience, scar tissue, training, wisdom, lives lost, folks injured in battle. but it's a very different kind of a guard force than it was 10 or 11 years ago. i'd like for you just to talk about in your experience since 2001 the changing nature of the guard and how critical the guard and reserve have been to your activities or other activities during the war on terror. >> thanks, i appreciate the opportunity to recognize that here in a public hearing. they have been magnificent in

serving as an operational and even strategic shock absorber for us so that we could conduct this war and not lose the all-volunteer force, which i think would have been the cost had we not had the ability to bring these ready forces full of patriots who looked past any hot plit cal rhetoric -- political rhetoric swirling around this war and answered their country's call, come in and deploy not once, not twice, but in many cases multiple times and i bring this up because we did have a contract with the guard and reserve that said, you would come in to take some pressure off the others. they've become more of an operational force now and we have to make sure we don't break that fundamental contract that allows them to be citizen soldiers. in other words, continue with their civilian career and still give us the reserve, the shock absorber we need. there comes a point where they're reserve only in name.

they're in fact becoming regulars. i think we have to look at the kind of force we compose at this point and make sure we keep faith with the reserves and the guard but at the same time not dismiss the very real capability they give this country when the call comes. >> thank you, general. we'll have a second round -- brief second round of questions for three minutes and i'll go to senator graham. >> thank you both. afghan, general mattis, the last card to play really is the residual force in 2014 do you agree with that? >> i do, sir. >> and we could have a very good outcome in afghanistan if we play that card well, do you agree with that? >> it will be critical to the good outcome. >> ok. 136 was the recommendation, 352 in terms of afghan security forces and some nato. that's the configuration, right? >> 13,600 was my personal recommendation, yes, sir. >> let's say that the

president, he's the commander in chief, we all respect that, my concern is that at the end here we're going to drop the ball. i don't want to do that. let's say you announce 10,000 u.s. forces, not 13,600 and you said publicly, we will reduce that force 2,000 in year until we get down to 2,000, you know, four years later. what kind of affect would a statement like that have on our success or potential success in afghanistan? >> senator graham, i think we have to send a message of commitment. we work with a lot of unpredictability, senator, and if the afghan security forces continue to mature the way they have been and we hold them at that full strength into 2018, there may be more reductions we can take. >> but you wouldn't announce on day one, we're going to withdraw 2,000 a year no matter what? >> i think a military per spentive -- perspective,

because of the unpredictable nature of war -- >> the enemy would look at the last number, not the first number. >> they will, yes, sir. >> that's fine. one last thing about iran. we've got two choices here. bring them to their senses, which is to stop developing the nuclear weapon capability, or bring them to their knees so they can't develop a nuclear weapon capability. aren't those our two options? >> yes, sir. >> as to the second option, do we have the capability to bring them to their knees? >> well, absolutely, senator. i would still say on bring to their senses between economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and encouragement of behavior that does not cost them such a

degree of political support that they end up losing power, there may yet be a way to bring them to their senses on a purely cost-benefit ratio. >> and i hope you're right, but if that doesn't work, the only option left is to bring them to their knees, do you agree? >> uh--- yes, sir, the means, there are a number of means to do that. perhaps even short of open conflict. but certainly that's one of the options that i have to have prepared for the president. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. general mattis, one follow-up on this guard and reserve question. so if they were sort of a traditional reserve and then we built the guard and reserve up to have this operational capacity and strategic shock absorber, as you indicate, and now we're wrestling with, you know, not wanting them to be

frayed, you don't recommend that we take them back to a pure distribute old reserve model? there's training and expertise that we ought to be now taking advantage of, so some scaleback to not wear them out and maintain them is appropriate, but wouldn't you suggest that a future role for the guard and reserve going forward should try to take advantage of this operational and strategic shock absorber capacity that they've developed over the last 10 years? >> i believe it would be wise to and also i think that we have to in light of the situation we face fiscally in the department right now. >> let me thank each of you very much. as you've noticed, people have been departing because there's a vote on right now and i'm going to depart the strage promptly but thank you so much for your service and your testimony today.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> here's a look at our primetime schedule on the c-span net, with. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, alan krueger, chairman of the white house council of economic advisors, talks about fiscal policy and ways to reduce the national debt. on c-span 2, the house foreign affairs committee hold as hearing on north korea's nuclear program and the effectiveness of sanctions. and on c-span 3, testimony from agriculture secretary tom sill vack on the -- vilsack on the state of rural america. all these programs tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on the c-span networks. attorney generic holder testifies tomorrow on oversight issues at the justice department. he'll speak in front of the senate judiciary committee, watch it live beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> abigail's letters have been

in print and she's been read since 1840 when her grandson first published an edition of her letters which went through four editions in the 1840's and she was a best seller through the 19th century. people knew her. she's always been famous. >> our conversation with historians about abigail adams is now available on our website, c-span.org/firstladies. earlier today, the house foreign affairs committee held a hearing on north korea's nuclear program and the effectiveness of sanctions. here's more on the issue with california congressman dana rohrabacher. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank you personally as well as thank chairwoman ileana ros-lehtinen for the strong leadership that both of you have provided on this issue of korea.

i remember many years ago when i was first elected and became a member of this committee, there was the debate as to whether or not -- what policies we should have and the six-party talks and how much -- and whether we were going to give north korea aid or not. can someone fill me in, we see here that south korea has given north korea $10 billion in aid. over the years the united states has provided food and oil and fuel for north korea. how much have we provided north korea in that type of assistance? do we have -- anyone on the panel have a number on that? >> i can put up on the food, i think the u.s. was the greatest donor nation on humanitarian food aid for an extended period of time to north korea and on the heavy fuel oil, pursuant to the aagreed framework, with the

energy development corporation, we provided significant amounts of heavy fuel oil -- >> i know that both of them are significant. does anyone have a number for me? are we talking about billions of dollars worth of food and oil? >> i think we're close to that. >> according to the congressional research service, a little over $1 billion. >> in food and oil? >> yes. >> ok. so we have provided over $1 billion of food and oil for korea over these last few years. let me just know that -- note that i remember that several members of congress, me included, were very vocally opposed to this policy. suggesting that it would be counterproductive and would be seen as a sign of weakness and actually would not bring about change in north korea and in fact i think we have been proven correct in those aggressive opposition to that policy. let me just say, you act like

idiots. idiots are the people who give -- do favors for their enemies. and when you act like idiots, you have to be expected to be treated like an idiot by your enemy. that's what's going on here in korea. they've been playing us, frankly, ever since we've decided to start giving them money. and the fact that south korea was willing to give them over $10 billion in aid and now we see that the regime is, what, is declaring that the truce is no longer going to be in place? i mean, this is a slap in the face to the useful its idiots all over the world that think you can buy off totalitarian enemies by being friends with them. let me just suggest also, and this is to my deer friend, mr. faleomavaega, who i might add is a vietnam veteran who is a heroic individual, but i'm

sorry that i think coconuts make good pina coladas but they make really bad policy. it seems to me that what -- and one last thought before i get to my question and that is, thank god we have missile defense. over the years, at the same time we're fighting to make sure we don't give our enemies money, which they now have used to develop nuclear weapons, at the very least we fought through a missile defense system which may provide us some security in the united states against missiles launched from north korea to southern california. so thank god that we overrode those -- that opposition to missile defense which was very strong in this congress. and finally, i'd just like to ask about china. do you folks, dr. lee, you sort of poo-pooed this and i agree with you, regime change and one

singular korea has to be the goal, but isn't china really pulling a lot of strings up there in north korea and aren't they the ones who hold the key to changing the direction of north korea? the peaceful change of direction. >> indeed. the chinese again won't take any kind of initiative to destabilize and cease continued existence of north korea to be in their national interest. having that north korea card to play vis-a-vis the united states over the long-term and having that buffer zone, china sees that to be in its interest. but -- >> so you assume you would have us assume that when we hear things like, we're going to -- there's going to be no more truce and we're doing these things, that the chinese are actually in agreement with the north koreans on that type of hostile act? >> the chinese are not very

pleased with north korea because north korea has always defied china, even being such a beneficiary of chinese largess. north korea has never cavegged in to chinese pressure -- caved in to chinese pressure throughout the past 60 years or so. the chinese have reasons to be a bit displeased. but all factors of national interest do not go on the same trajectory forever. they can diverge. and if we come to a situation where by the chinese leadership has to make a decision, to wave good-bye or to take a major risk in confronting the united states and other powers in the region i think pract similar would prevail. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] fed [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> that was a portion of today's house foreign affairs committee hearing on north korea's nuclear program. you can see the entire event tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2 or any time in our video library at c-span.org. also today the house rules committee met to introduce a resolution that would fund the federal government for the rest

of fiscal year 2013. current funding runs out on march 27. the bill's expected to be debated on the house floor this week. here's a portion of that hearing now. rules committee to join us once >> start dealing with circumstances that i think none of us wish we are. -- we were. the facts of the case are that we are spending money that we borrow and when you borrow money to run the operations, whether it's a family or whether it's a business or whether it's a government, at some point you got to pay it back. erations, whether it's a family or whether it's a business or whether it's a government, at some point you've got to pay it back. our government will spend around $275 billion a year that we will pay on interest. and in a normal year where interest rates were different, that could move to $500 billion a year. and this means that my children

and others will have a diminished opportunity to have freedom and make the american dream work. so, this member is no different than any member up here. we wish we weren't in this role, but we are. so i can say you two have given us a direction, albeit with a great head lamp, for a future. i'm glad we're coming to an agreement to move forward. as chairman rogers said, he's tried to do this on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. thanks to both of you. dr. fox? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for coming today, and i know that you all have done a lot of work, along with the staff, to get us to this place so that we can keep the government funding.

ms. lowey, i understand what you're saying, and i agree with you about the fact that the sequester is not good for the defense of this nation, but if you haven't read bob woodward's book, and i hope that you will, let me tell you, page 326 on july 26th, this is a quote, direct quote, from the bob woodward book, at "2:30 p.m., white house budget director jack lew and white house legislative affairs director rob neighbors went to the senate to meet with senate majority leader harry reid and his chief of staff david crone. we have an idea for the trigger, lew said. what's the idea, reid asked skeptically? sequestration." so, i hope that you have taken your pleas to the president and to his staff. >> will the gentlelady yield for a quick question? >> not yet.

i just started. >> it's relevant to the point you just made. >> after i -- thank you. so, i hope very much that you have made your appeal to the president, because we certainly have made that appeal, and i think you know that we passed two bills last year to stop the sequester and to make what we thought were sensible, smart, common sense cuts. and we just haven't been able to get bipartisan support for those. i think it's very important that the american people understand this is the president's sequester. this is not the republicans of the house sequester, yes, some of us voted for it. i don't know if that's what my colleague's going to ask, but like many other people, we had hoped it would never get to this point. but the idea came from the

president. i tell school groups when i meet with them all the time, the number one role of the federal government is the defense of this nation. every other thing that we do from the federal level, practically, can be done at the state and local levels, but not defense. and if we don't have a strong defense and we're not kept a free people, the rest of it, frankly, doesn't matter much, because if we're not free, we can't do the other things. so, i appreciate your appeal. i appreciate your concerns about defense, and i believe they are wholeheartedly felt on your part. but i think that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are directing their concerns to the wrong people, because i think it's the other side of the aisle that needs to pay

attention to where we are. and with that, i would yield to my colleague from massachusetts. >> i would just point out to the gentle lady that thomas mann and norm have put out a book that discredits the woodward book and did the gentle lady vote for the sequester? >> i believe i did. >> i tell school kids there's separation of powers, you've got the executive and the legislative branch. here in the legislative branch we can say yes or we can say no. you voted for the sequester, so i would say to the gentle lady, she owns it. and the fact that we are here at this point, you know, basically in a state of dysfunction is representative of the lack of leadership here in the house of representatives. i thank the gentle lady for yielding, but i wanted to point out that her definitive remark about the president is not so definitive. >> reclaiming my time, i realize that we have a separation of powers and that we have three

branches of government, and i would say to you that the house is only half of the congress. the white house is controlled by democrats, the senate is controlled by democrats. the republicans in the house are not in a state of dysfunction. we pass bills last year, twice, asking this be taken care of and it was not taken care of. the president, all the president would need to do is ask the senate to pass the bill that the house sent over or to pass their own bill. we're still waiting for the senate to pass a bill and send it to us so we can go to conference. >> gentle lady said she voted for the sequester, that must mean she supports the sequester. if she didn't, she would have voted against it. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> if i may respond, mr. chairman and ms. foxx. if i recall, i'm not sure if that's the vote my friend mr. mcgovern is talking about, but i

believe there was a vote for the sequester in the summer of 2011 in the cut, cap, and balance act so that this is a republican priority. i think it's important, secondly, to make the point, because i think we're adults and we all care about the long-term debt and we care about the deficit. i have three children, i have eight grandchildren. i don't know how many you have, but we were talking about it, and i do worry about our children and the future. but we did pass the budget control act, which took a trillion dollars in the long-term debt, $1 trillion over the ten years, over the decade, and also put cap of $550 billion on discretionary spending. and i also want to make it clear, as i know the chairman and i worry about this, that discretionary dollars, as a

percentage of the gross domestic product, as a percentage of the economy, is at its lowest level in the last 45 years. so, we do cut. and i guess there's a difference in philosophy, because i believe we have to decrease the long-term debt, but i also believe that putting people to work, investing in infrastructure, making sure we deal with our roads, our bridges, our highway, is the way to do it. so the sequester cut that was part of the cut, cap, and balance act, i don't think, is a responsible way for legislators to legislate. >> mr. chairman, might i say, sequestration is one thing. continuing resolution is another. we're here about the continuing resolution. and sequestration is upon us and we'll have to deal with that, but not now. this bill is only about keeping

the government operating for the balance of the year, and i would hope we can stay with that. >> well, i -- first of all, i agree with the gentleman, but in reference to the political remarks that have been made that are very appropriate in this context, let us remember that it was speaker john boehner and our majority leader eric cantor who said we will not allow the government to go into chaos because we don't pass a debt limit, and i believe it became a very important attribute early on, 18 months ago, of the president and the new republican leadership of working together and the resolution was one that they all work together. we can all look back and say we didn't like it, but it did become law and we are there. thank you very much for the comment, mrs. slaughter. >> i thank you very much, mr. chairman, for an opportunity to speak. i didn't vote for sequester, and

i expect none of us did, so i don't expect any ownership at all, but i do know what we can do with it. mr. van holland is going to come up for the fourth time and try to get his amendment made in order and that would do away with sequester and save us an awful lot of money with cuts to agriculture subsidies and oil companies and others instituting the buffett rule. i do hope we can find it in our hearts today. the fourth time for the ranking member of the budget committee to come to rules and ask for an amendment is a little bit embarrassing, so i hope we'll be able to do that. thank you for the time. did the lights go out? >> something happened. >> have we been sequestered? 10% of the lights are out. >> i told you to stop talking about sequestration. >> i have a little trouble, howell is my hometown from kentucky, we've been buddies forever. glad to see you. >> good to see you. >> that may be a precursor.

mrs. slaughter and i were before the committee this morning asking for a budget for this year, this next year, and we may have just gotten an answer. i hope we paid our bills. we're a support organization. mr. bishop? >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i engage in the political spin of the day, would you mind if i asked you some specific questions about the bill that's actually before us? i do have about three. actually, i have the first is the most important question. mr. chairman, i would wonder if your friend and acquaintance from back in the good old days, if you have any stories we can use and be successful here. >> the gentleman does, i'm not sure how successful those would be and i don't find those germane to today's argument, but i will say this, with respect to that, we have mutually assured destruction of each other in mind. so, thank you for checking on

that. i'll give you his business card. >> we'll talk to you in the hall afterwards. >> see, i'm in trouble, blake. thank you. >> this c.r. and some of the media reports i think was inaccurately described as adding $7 to $10 billion to the current c.r. levels. i understand that is not accurate to that, but you do shift or at least allow the shifting of funds into the operation and maintenance of the military. if you could just simply tell me what you actually do in the shifting or allowing the shifting of those funds and perhaps what would be the offsets that were put into the plus-up for o & m. >> essentially, the -- unless we pass the d.o.d. appropriations bill that we've included in this bill, if we don't do that and they stay under the old

straight-out c.r., they are going to run short of operations and maintenance account money, so what the bill does is shift money, as the bill that passed the house did, shifts money into the operations and maintenance bucket. >> you have -- maybe one of your staffers has from whenst that money comes to o & m? >> the o & m would be reduced if we don't do this by about $11 billion. that's because a c.r., plain-old c.r., keeps each account static. all funding remains at last year's levels. that means important funds are kept from accounts at which they

are needed. while billions are given to obsolete programs or programs that should be reduced. for example, things like iraq operations. $500 million, for example, in savings from spare parts that are excessed to what they need. the c.r., regular c.r., does not allow for new starts. we lose billions more in increased production delays and contract slippage. for example, construction of the next aircraft carrier would be pushed back a year. construction of new destroyers would be halted. 17 hospitals, which are needed to treat our wounded warriors, would not be billed unless we do this. things like that.

the defense budget is a very fluid account, more fluid than any other of the government, because you've got so many things going out at one time. and year-old divisions of money, which a regular c.r. would provide, would take away the department's ability to spend money where they need it rather than where they would be made to do it under the old law. >> so this misrepresentation on the part of the media, $7 to $10 billion, that's flexibility, that's the number roughly you're putting back into o & m in the military? >> flexibility -- let me mention briefly, too, bill young is in the room, chairman young, he's the author of the defense bill that we're incorporating in the c.r. his subcommittee, which he chairs, and which was approved also by the senate committee. it's a refreshed new look at how d.o.d. wants and needs to spend

the money they get, given the inflexibilities to move money around to fit today's needs. >> do you see this kind of shift of the o & m budget as helping lessen the impact of some of the large civilian furloughs that may be threatened within the defense community for the civilian employees? will this give them some flexibility to play around with that concept? >> this bill does not address the sequestration problem. it will give them flexibility to try to absorb sequestration costs better than they could have otherwise. but it will by no means solve the sequestration hit on defense. >> just in this one area then with furloughs, sans this change, this appropriations attached to the c.r., there would be very little opportunity for them to try and move some money around to mitigate that

kind of condition. this gives the military, as i understand it, a flexibility to see if they can put some area, some mitigation, into the impact it would have, or not, am i accurate in that? >> are you talking about contract employees? >> civilian work load that may be furloughed. does this give them flexibility to play with the furloughs? >> i don't think it would have any impact. ach agency has [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a portion >> the house plans to meet tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern to consider that resolution and is expected to pass that measure tomorro